In Israel, Clinton Rules Out Quitting

Senate's Rules Give Guidelines For A Trial

December 14, 1998|By Naftali Bendavid, Washington Bureau.

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a man rarely seen by the public, just might make a momentous appearance in mid-January at the door of the Senate chamber. If so, he would be solemnly escorted to the podium by a committee of senators appointed especially for that purpose.

Chicago's John Paul Stevens, the longest-serving associate justice, would swear him in as senators looked on. Rehnquist, who administers oaths but almost never has taken them, would intone in his deep voice:

"I do solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, the president of the United States, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws, so help me God."

It is only now, with a House vote on impeaching President Clinton just days away and the outcome uncertain, that many in Washington, including members of Congress, are confronting for the first time what a trial might entail.

"A Senate trial would consist of 100 senators sitting in silence like a jury, with the television cameras watching, as week after week witnesses such as Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Vernon Jordan, Betty Currie and a host of others were examined and cross-examined in exacting detail about months and months of events," said Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor.

The trial would follow Rehnquist's swearing-in, most likely with Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) acting as prosecutor and White House counsel Charles Ruff as defense lawyer--and millions following along on television and radio.

In such a trial, the Senate would have difficulty avoiding the spectacle of Lewinsky testifying on the Senate floor about her sexual dalliance with the president, many experts believe. The infamous semen-stained dress could be entered into evidence in the same chamber where Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun once spoke.

Only one impeachment trial of a president has unfolded in U.S. history: that of Andrew Johnson in 1868. But the procedures are set out fairly clearly in the Senate rules, and reading them makes it clear that a trial would be full of high drama, juxtaposing ugly sexual details with the majestic atmosphere of the Senate.

In many ways, Clinton's trial might look to the public like other familiar court cases, such as the O.J. Simpson and Menendez brothers murder trials. Prosecutors from the House of Representatives would be seated to Rehnquist's right, the president's attorneys to Rehnquist's left.

Hyde seems the most likely choice of the House leadership to head a team of impeachment "managers" who would prosecute the case. Asked recently if he envisioned such a role, Hyde replied curtly, "Haven't thought about that and don't want to think about it."

If the House approves articles of impeachment, most observers believe the Senate has no choice but to hold a trial. The Senate would send Clinton an official summons, and the president would enter a plea like any other defendant. He would have the right to appear at the trial, but he is virtually certain to avoid such a risky move.

Hyde, Ruff or whoever takes the lead legal roles would give opening statements. Then each would call a parade of witnesses to be examined and cross-examined. All other Senate work would probably come to a virtual halt, something that concerns Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

"It could go on for weeks or longer," Durbin said recently. "It would basically shut down the operation of the Senate. Talking to my colleagues, I've heard concerns on both sides of the aisle. This will clearly be at the expense of all other business, whether it's Social Security or Medicare or the patients' bill of rights."

The country, no doubt, also would be preoccupied with such a trial. Televisions in workplaces, homes and stores would likely be tuned constantly to C-SPAN or CNN to watch an event resembling a mixture of the Watergate hearings, a Court TV trial and a soap opera.

The role played by Rehnquist would be a curious one. The chief justice has never been a judge anywhere but the Supreme Court, and he has never run a trial. In the rarefied air of the high court, Rehnquist exercises unchallenged authority. It is not clear how he would run a hard-hitting trial or how he would respond to a television audience of millions.

"He has always been publicity-shy and kept the work of the court, as well as his own personal views, completely out of the public domain," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a judicial watchdog group. "He refrains from speaking in public except on intellectual issues. This is not his domain. It is not an area he is comfortable in."

Another intriguing question arises: Would the Supreme Court, if it is sitting at the time, suspend operations while the chief justice of the United States is tied up with an impeachment trial?